But I didn't write, "I haven't met an atheist that has impressed." I wrote, "I haven't met an atheist HERE that has impressed." And you are proving my point by trying to claim that wasn't what I meant. I meant exactly what I wrote. I even explained how it would be illogical if I had written what you claim I intended to write.You are still putting words in my mouth. Make that argument without doing that and we can continue. It would be illogical to have a discussion that starts with a known error.So now let me address this comment of yours.
You come across people like me quite often? What I know is more about what I want to know, rather than what actually exists? You don't know what I know and what I don't know. You don't know if I have been subjective or objective and you certainly don't know what kind of person I am.I've come across people like you quite often. What you "know" is more about what you want to know, rather than what actually exists. You said it yourself, your views are based on "observation, reason and experience." Not on research, not on study, but on what you see around you. If it's cold outside, your observation is that the Earth isn't cold, your experience is that it's cold. Reason suggests therefore that there isn't any global warming. This isn't me saying you reject global warming, by the way, this is just an example of how some people process information. You can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation.
Yes, my beliefs are based upon observation, reason and experience. Just like everyone else on this planet. Are you suggesting that you don't rely upon observation, reason and experience? Is there something wrong with relying upon observation, reason and experience?
Just because I didn't mention research and study doesn't mean the information I rely upon wasn't researched and studied. I'm fairly certain that when it comes to science what I know has been thoroughly researched and studied. In fact, when it comes to understanding the evolution of space and time which is the only evidence we have to evaluate the existence of a creator, it has been thoroughly researched, studied and evaluated.
As for your analogy that because it is cold outside that there can be no global warming, that is a red herring and has no bearing on what I rely upon for my beliefs. The reality is that the planet has been warming for the last 22,000 years as we are in an interglacial cycle and given that our present temperature is still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycles we can expect it to warm further.
And lastly, I can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation? You do understand this is the basis for science, right? So, yes, Yes, I can understand a lot of issues through experience and observation and reason.
If we go back to your argument, which was that you haven't met an atheist that has impressed you, what do we get?
Does this mean atheists aren't intelligent? No, it doesn't.
You've used your observations and evidence you've seen to make a case, but as far as I can tell the statement you made wasn't made with much effort at all.
This is what I've seen here, and therefore all atheists aren't very intelligent.
I'm no atheist. I could point to atheists being the same as religious people, they're believers. Too many people on forums like this BELIEVE what they want to believe.
"I believe there's a God." "Can you prove it?" "Fuck off you moron"
Is more or less the normal way a conversation happens on here.
With Atheists it's "I don't believe there's a God." "Can you prove it?" and it doesn't usually end in insults, but it also doesn't end up in a logical argument either.
I can go out and make my case for my argument.
You didn't do that. You merely said "this is what I see" without really backing your stuff up.
You could have provided more information.
HOWEVER..... I understand that a lot of people on this forum don't really like reading too much. You give them enough information and they merely say "no", so you feel like you've wasted your time.
In talking to you these past few posts I've learned a lot about you, but still, other things I'm not sure about and I still have assumptions that I can't disspell.
Here's the question then.
Do you think you can understand about atheists just by reading what they write in this forum?
No, again, I'm reading what you wrote, I understand this isn't necessarily what you wanted to write, but you did write it.
Concerning what you did actually write, are atheists intelligent? Not necessarily. I've discussed that point.
Maybe a little more explanation on what you do actually want to say would be in order.
It does not require any intellect to deny everything that is presented.
I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect.
It doesn't take intellect to deny, or to accept. So what's the point?
Again you are misstating what I wrote. I wrote, "It does not require any intellect to deny everything that is presented." The meaning of this statement is self evident.
It is your argument that it does not require any intellect to accept what you have been told. I answered this by telling you, that isn't what I have done. My beliefs are based upon reason, observations and experience.
If you want to know what they are then I suggest you go to the topic in the Bull Ring and read about them. Fair enough?